23:0007(2)NG - AFGE, Council of Prison Locals, Local 1741 and Justice, Federal Prison System, Federal Corrections Institution, Milan, MI -- 1986 FLRAdec NG



[ v23 p7 ]
23:0007(2)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 23 FLRA No. 2
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL OF
 PRISONS LOCALS, LOCAL 1741
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 
 FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM,
 FEDERAL CORRECTIONS
 INSTITUTION,
 MILAN, MICHIGAN
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-1179
 
                   ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
 
    This case is before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E)
 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Regulations on a
 petition for review of negotiability issues filed by the Union.  For the
 reasons indicated below, it has been determined that the Union's
 petition for review was untimely filed and must be dismissed on that
 basis.
 
    From the record before the Authority, it appears that the local
 parties forwarded a supplemental collective bargaining agreement to the
 designee of the Agency head for review and approval pursuant to section
 7114(c((4) of the Statute.  Article 9, Section d of the parties'
 National Controlling Agreement set forth the procedures for review of
 such local supplemental agreements.  /1/ The designee of the Agency head
 disapproved a number of provisions of the local agreement and served a
 copy of that disapproval on the Regional Vice President of the Union on
 August 27, 1985, by certified mail.  The Union filed its petition for
 review with the Authority on September 19, 1985.  In its statement of
 position, the Agency contends that the Union's petition was untimely
 filed.  In response, the Union asserts that under the Controlling
 National Agreement the Agency's disapproval should have been served on
 the National President of the Union rather than the Regional Vice
 President.  The Union further asserts that its appeal was timely filed
 from the date a local Union official obtained a copy of the disapproval.
 
    Under section 7117(c)(2) of the Statute and section 2424.3 of the
 Authority's Rules and Regulations, the time limit for filing a petition
 for review of negotiability issues is 15 days after service on the Union
 of the Agency's allegation that the duty to bargain in good faith does
 not extend to the matter proposed to be bargained.  Further, section
 2429.22 of the Authority's Regulations provides for five days to be
 added to the prescribed filing period when the allegation is served on
 the Union by mail.  Moreover, it is now well-established that an agency
 head's disapproval of a locally negotiated collective bargaining
 agreement constitutes an allegation of nonnegotiability for purposes of
 appeal to the Authority.  American Federation of Government Employees,
 Local 2142, AFL-CIO and Department of the Army, Corpus Christi Army
 Depot, Corpus Christi, Texas, 15 FLRA 98 (1984).
 
    In this case, it is undisputed that the Agency's disapproval of the
 local agreement provisions was served on the Union's Regional Vice
 President by certified mail on August 27, 1985.  Moreover, based on the
 clear language of Article 9, Section d of the National Controlling
 Agreement, the Regional Vice President was the Union official the Agency
 was required to serve and not the National President as the Union
 asserts.  There is no reference to the National President in the
 pertinent agreement provision and the Union fails to establish any basis
 for its assertion.  Therefore, under sections 2424.3 and 2429.22 of the
 Authority's Rules and Regulations, any appeal from the Agency's
 allegation of nonnegotiability had to be filed with the Authority no
 later than September 16, 1985, in order to be considered timely.  Since
 the Union's petition for review was not filed until September 19, 1985,
 it is untimely and must be denied on that basis.
 
    Accordingly, and apart from other considerations, the Union's
 petition for review is hereby dismissed.
 
    For the Authority,
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., August 6, 1986.
                                       Harold D. Kessler
                                       Director of Case Management
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (1) Article 9, Section d provides, in part:
 
    Section d.  O